Let's get down to the Truth (94-98) SN95 GT

[JerZeyStangz]

Why do people say that the 96' GT is the slowest mustang ever built? Exception of the 98 GT with the bumped up power increase. I feel like then sn95 GT was a seriously underpowered car (stock) compared to everything else. My question is why did ford restrict these cars so much when they could of easily had 240, maybe 250 crank horsepower?

Evidence: Stock Tune, Air Box, 6 - catted (h) pipe.

Did we have a gas crisis in the 90's like we are having today with prices so high?

 

[Mustang Mark]

They wanted the camaro to be faster...

 

[JerZeyStangz]

haha, thats funny. The LT1 always was faster stock for stock.

 

[duff daddy]

Emissions, dont forget that 96 was the first year OBDII was used on a car so that my have accounted for the fuel/emissions set up. Alot of it has to do with other things. They were still jsut getting in to the game of electronic control for other parts on the car. The Mod motor was out back in early 90's with the Merc's so it wasnt that the motor was brand new just trying to meet regulations for the cars weight.

 

[JerZeyStangz]

Emissions, dont forget that 96 was the first year OBDII was used on a car so that my have accounted for the fuel/emissions set up. Alot of it has to do with other things. They were still jsut getting in to the game of electronic control for other parts on the car. The Mod motor was out back in early 90's with the Merc's so it wasnt that the motor was brand new just trying to meet regulations for the cars weight.

Yeah the motor is definitely suffocated. I guess since 96 was the first year for almost everything it truely was the guinea pig for mustang. I know if they tried harder they could of squeezed out a lot more power.

 

[marq.fcb]

Emissions

is that 100% real answer or there is something more ?

I always want to know why only 215hp from 5.0

 

[Paul]

Because 4.6 motors suck, and they couldn't do any better.

 

[AaRoN]

Because 4.6 motors suck, and they couldn't do any better.

If they truly sucked that bad, what's that say about the 302? The smaller 281 replaced it (making more and more power then the almighty 302 every year)....

 

[duff daddy]

Because 4.6 motors suck, and they couldn't do any better.

How many 4.6's are on the road???

Taxi cabs, Cop Cars(linc, merc, and vic's), mustangs, explorers, f150's, for the past 10 years, I think that far outnumber(and thats just 2v's) the much much superior 5.0's right?

The motors arent massivly powerful from the factory but they do their job. The blocks hold MUCH more power then a 5.0 (iron to iron) and besides the NPI issues on power and the intake manifold, the 99+ PI designed motor is quite balanced. As far as the engineers idea of a perfect motor being "square" the 4.6 mod motor is very much square.

 

[JerZeyStangz]

Because 4.6 motors suck, and they couldn't do any better.

I think your wrong. Actually I know your wrong. If you would read SHM book, you would know that the 4.6L NPI, and PI have a lot of uncorked power left on the table. This platform could of definitely been improved on, and it has. I'm not going to discriminate on the 5.0 either because its a great platform as well. But in my opinion I think the 4.6L has alot of pros to it then cons.

is that 100% real answer or there is something more ?

I always want to know why only 215hp from 5.0

Same problem with us, I believe your cylinder heads are severely suffocated and even a mild backyard mechanic style porting can get them flowing better. The stock manifold is decent, but the cobra intake manifold is better I believe, and you guys have the 6 cat pipe too right?

 

[LI98GT]

Agree with the Emissions take. The 5.0 was thought to not be able to pass the tougher emissions that needed to be adhered to and the 4.6 would offer improved gas mileage (help ford with meeting CAFE standards) and modern technology with the OHC design. Ford didn't have to try real hard to put a lot of hp in a mustang because even through they were at quite a deficit compared to Crapmaros and Firebird, they still outsold them many to one.

Why the perception that the early 4.6s were slow is there for a couple reasons. Besides the obvious that they were slow, you guys already gathered a couple reasons as to why with the restrictive heads, and stock H pipe. Ford tried to make the smaller motor "feel" similiar to the outgoing 5.0, but they only succeded in hampering it (IMO). The short runners in the NPI intake was supposed to help the power down low for the less cubes, but it strangled it up top and would fall on it's knees at 5krpm max. The gears chosen on the early stangs were numerically very low, so it didn't feel fast when taking off. A lot of the later (98s) came with the optional 3.27s, so they "felt" quicker than a lot of the older "not gear optioned" 96/97 stangs. For the 5.0s, you could always bump the timing very easily without buying anyting and tons of head choices for the mature engine and the new 4.6s (there was no aftermarket T/As initially) so no quick timing advance was an option to quickly dial-in when you hit the track. I think most stock late model 5.0 stangs were in the ~14.0 1/4 mile range with the timing change and I remember seeing a lot of 96/97s were in the close to 15.0 range - again all stock (no gears, timing or slicks). I noticed quite a bit of change in feel and actual hp with the pi camswap over the "mild" NPI cams, so I would put cams on the list as well.

 

[JerZeyStangz]

Great answer LI98GT.

 

[OnyxCobra]

I don't think it was strictly an early 4.6 thing, the 94-95 GTs were rather doggy too. The Cobras were a little quicker but I think 14.0 is a little generous.

 

[1997GT4.6]

Eh the late 5.0s weren't very impressive either, although I truly want one to keep aside and just work on. Much better motor in my opinion to mod: cheaper, cheaper, cheaper need I say more lol. Although I love my 4.6 GT it's expensive to mod. And yes I know if the PI swap. All opinions on my part though. btw couldn't stand the slowness of my GT so I bought a Cobra.

 

[945.0]

ford has issues with producing a clean burning car. hence a fn smog pump and 4 cats. longer belt takes engine longer to complete rotation thus its lacking power. 4 cats = restricted exiting of exhaust = lack of power. 5.0s im talking about for one. on the 4.6s i have not had much experience with them so im unable to complain about that setup. me personally less is more and i dont like all the extra crap under my hood thats why i bought one with a 5.slow.

 

[JerZeyStangz]

I think we all conclude that design of the car was on point, but the severely underpowered. The car is the second lightest mustang every produced (fox body chasis), but the power plants should of had more power!

 

[945.0]

agreed

 

[Javi]

If they truly sucked that bad, what's that say about the 302? The smaller 281 replaced it (making more and more power then the almighty 302 every year)....

cause they have more cams!?

 

[russ8825]

Lotz of good stuffs said

Agree with you on pretty much everything, except stock 5.0s running 14 flat with a timing bump. One could only wish . My stock 95 5.0 came with the 3.27s and it felt super slow compared to my 1985 fox vert automatic. IMO The thing that makes the sn95s feel really slow is the HP to weight ratio. The engines were making about the same horse power as the foxes were back in 1986, and the fox bodies weighed anywhere between 500-700 pounds lighter than the sn95s. Ford really did zilch for power in stock engine design until 1999. For the 5.0's they used the same E7 heads from 1987-1995. For 4.6's there a few different NPI heads available on different ford models between 1991-99, but IIRC the only differences were in cam design and they were all super restrictive on air flow. Ford really didnt care, as they were outselling the camaro left and right.

 

[DropTopPony]

215 HP was a decent amount for that time period.

The big problem was that is when cars started getting heavier due to safety and emission restrictions and 215 HP isn't enough to haul 3400lb cars all that fast.